Originally posted by: dna
I don't understand why you guys argue only about suicide bombings: it should be about terrorism, since this way you can include all the attacks carried out in Chechnia, Kashmir, India, as well as those in South East Asia (like the one in Bali, and the recent ones in Thailand) -- they are all carried out by Muslim, and they demonstrate that there is some issue with Muslims everywhere, period.
Let him ramble all he wants about suicide bombings being carried only by Arabs -- he already demonstrated that he's incapable of a reasonable discussion when he asked to point out where it says in the Koran about suicide bombings (to which I asked where does the Koran mention AK-47s and Semtex).
Originally posted by: mattpegher
Question. We talk about how Islam teaches "conversion by the sword", but can anyone give actual passages from the Koran. Religion will always be used by powerfull individuals to use the poor and weakminded to further their own power. But if, as I understand it, there are actual passages in the Koran or other Islamic texts, then are these translations or did Mohammed actually condone violence. If the latter then I'm afraid we will always have these problems. In general the secular world and other religions have evolved beyond violence as an excusable response to criticism (granted there are nutbags from every camp). As I have said in other threads, the problem is that Islam has no central heirarchy to which the world can approach for calm.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
it doesn't have to mention ak's, just what to do about a corrupt society and all that good stuff. plenty of justification for anything you want. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
and yes a religion should be judged by the actions of its believers. thats what a religion is after all the beliefs and following actions of its believers.
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: mattpegher
Question. We talk about how Islam teaches "conversion by the sword", but can anyone give actual passages from the Koran. Religion will always be used by powerfull individuals to use the poor and weakminded to further their own power. But if, as I understand it, there are actual passages in the Koran or other Islamic texts, then are these translations or did Mohammed actually condone violence. If the latter then I'm afraid we will always have these problems. In general the secular world and other religions have evolved beyond violence as an excusable response to criticism (granted there are nutbags from every camp). As I have said in other threads, the problem is that Islam has no central heirarchy to which the world can approach for calm.
they weren't always converted by the sword. during good times people generally aren't easily moved to large scale violence. not to say it didn't erupt from time to time, and when it does..well..not good and "good" times were relative, no matter how so called tolerant muslims were supposedly during these times it didn't mean non muslims were equal. only the people of the book were semi ok, other religions, well those were up sh*t creek. and generally they were all second class citizens, a more insideous kind of oppression used to make people convert to make their lives easier, even if their conversion was in name only. its how ideologies like this work. its supremacist of course, other religions are wrong after all, so the muslim is by default morally superior, and the laws come from that. and one gets the feeling certain ways of dress/constant public prayer times/calls to prayer are the way to make sure any minorities know whos got control, and to separate the damned from the saved for everyone to see at all times.
Ary Hermawan, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Nadhlatul Ulama chairman Hasyim Muzadi called on Indonesian Muslims on Monday to accept Pope Benedict XVI's apology for offending Muslims, saying it was "an obligation" according to Islamic teachings.
"As long as it (the Pope's remarks) was made out of negligence, we are obliged to accept the apology," Hasyim said on the sidelines of a religious leaders conference at the NU office.
The conference, held by the Indonesian Conference for Religion and Peace (ICRP), was also addressed by Cardinal Julius Darmaatmadja of the Indonesian Bishops Conference (KWI).
Hasyim said the regret was "enough" and further resentment from the Muslims would only justify the pope's statement. "If the rage continues, perhaps what the pope said is true," he said.
The pope in his address at the University of Regensburg in Bavaria, Germany, quoted a medieval text linking Islam with violence.
Quoting a 14th century Christian, Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, the pope said everything the Prophet Muhammad brought was evil, "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The Vatican issued a formal statement Saturday, announcing the Pope's "sincere regret" over his remarks and the reactions of the Muslims around the world. The pope stressed Sunday that the medieval quotes he used in his speech address did not reflect his personal views. The speech was about the importance of reason, and not violence, in one's faith -- something he said many Christian and Muslim scholars agreed on.
In the conference, the KWI made a formal statement of apology to Muslims here for the pope's remark. The church said it shared the concerns of Muslims, who thought their prophet was belittled or their God blasphemed.
"I hope this incident does not damage the religious harmony we have tried to build all this time," the statement said, "and the act of forgiving each other will be the basis for better dialog in our coexistence."
Hasyim said the relationship between Islam and the Vatican here was good and would not be destroyed in a few days, although he admitted that the statement had caused tensions between the two faiths.
"The damage might have been done ... but it is regretted in the hope that it will not happen again," Cardinal Julius said. The incident taught a good lesson; that one should be extra careful when speaking about religion and holy books.
There are about six million Catholics in the country.
Speaking at the Non-Aligned Movement summit, in Havana, Cuba, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said he hoped the pope's apology would end the global outcry among Muslims.
He also praised Indonesia's religious leaders such as Hasyim, Muhammadiyah chairman Din Syamsudin and popular preacher Abdullah Gymnastiar, who he said had responded to the Pope's remarks "wisely".
"I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the ulema in Indonesia, who have urged their communities to refrain (from committing violence) and told them there would be a good end to the problem," he told Antara.
Meanwhile, Islamic Defenders Front members rallied in front of the Vatican embassy building Monday, demanding the pope apologize "directly" to Muslims.
"He has only expressed his regret, but he has not yet apologized," the hardline group's spokesman, Umar Nawawi, said.
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Until the day comes when I see large masses of Muslims going in the streets, organizing protests, chanting "We are not terrorists, we don't want terrorists in our midsts, either", and until I see Muslim elites - especially religious figures with heavy followings and instantly recognizable names in the Arab/Muslim world - going on record with loud, outspoken denounciations of the jihadists, I will continue to consider this civilisation as a dangerous manifestation of religious extremism, and would urge everyone in the West to maintain relations to a minimum.
I am sick and tired of all the whiners who claim Islam is a peaceful religion. It badly needs reform and secularization, and as time goes by I am more and more concerned that an open war is unavoidable between "us" and "them".
Maybe the Christians should do that for invading a Muslim country that had nothing to do with terror?
My point is Muslims do speak out. You just don't see it.
Christians speak out aganst their BS too.
But why should masses go to the streets when the acts of violence committed by Muslims is not part of Islam? Why should Christians go to the streets in masses when the acts of violence committed by Christians is not part of Christianity?
If the world is uneducted then it is not the duty of the educated to educate the dumb. They can live just fine by having the dumb being dumb.
Originally posted by: shurato
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Until the day comes when I see large masses of Muslims going in the streets, organizing protests, chanting "We are not terrorists, we don't want terrorists in our midsts, either", and until I see Muslim elites - especially religious figures with heavy followings and instantly recognizable names in the Arab/Muslim world - going on record with loud, outspoken denounciations of the jihadists, I will continue to consider this civilisation as a dangerous manifestation of religious extremism, and would urge everyone in the West to maintain relations to a minimum.
I am sick and tired of all the whiners who claim Islam is a peaceful religion. It badly needs reform and secularization, and as time goes by I am more and more concerned that an open war is unavoidable between "us" and "them".
Maybe the Christians should do that for invading a Muslim country that had nothing to do with terror?
My point is Muslims do speak out. You just don't see it.
Christians speak out aganst their BS too.
But why should masses go to the streets when the acts of violence committed by Muslims is not part of Islam? Why should Christians go to the streets in masses when the acts of violence committed by Christians is not part of Christianity?
If the world is uneducted then it is not the duty of the educated to educate the dumb. They can live just fine by having the dumb being dumb.
No instead they go around saying they want to wipe countries like Israel off the map. Or claim the Holocaust never happened.
When will Muslim's in the world wake up and look in the mirror for the source of the problem.